Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections

[Trevor Daniels]

Carl D. Sorensen wrote Friday, January 02, 2009 1:44 PM

> On 1/2/09 2:32 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Carl D. Sorensen wrote Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:52 PM
> >
> > > On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > I think we already have clear standards for revision under GOP --  
> > > they're
> > > the same as for the GDP.  Unless you are proposing different standards 
> > > for
> > > the LM and the NR.  If that's the case, then ignore my comments, because
> > > I'd
> > > be fine with your standards if they apply only to the LM.  If they apply
> > > to
> > > the NR, I think it would be a mistake to undo what we did with the GDP.
> > >
> > > So ignore the rest of my comments if you intend them to apply to the LM
> > > only.
> >
> > Yes, NR 1 & 2 are fine.  I was suggesting a slight variation
> > on them for the LM and later chapters of the NR, since here
> > a lot of the text does not need to be subdivided or ToC'd.
> > The formatting of NR 1 & 2 is clear; it is the rest of the
> > manual and the LM which is rather variable at present and I
> > wanted to have a clear policy written down before these sections
> > are firmed up.
>
> I think we should maintain the NR standards throughout the NR.  For 
> example,
> NR 6 is currently *not* organized according to the NR standards, so there
> are places where an additional menu layer needs to be added.  But I had 
> the
> same problem when writing chords.itely, and I think the resulting
> consistency in the manual is well worth maintaining.

I agree; that's why it is important to set out the standards
clearly and to ensure they are consistent with clarity.  Look
at chapter 3.  It would be silly to invent @unnumberedsubsubsecs
for the sections there; they don't need it.  I think the standards
must accommodate the needs of the documentation, and must not
be so rigid that clarity is compromised.

Trevor